https://x.com/DiscussingFilm/status/2012915059194839407
>>217438908Man he got bogged
>>217438908No DEI mentioned Fucking coward lmao
>>217438946ben is having a perpetual midlife crisis.
>>217438908God I hope it replaces current actors and current screenwriting.
>>217438908He's not slamming AI here. He's saying there's room for it and artists too, and that the faggots whining about it are the same grandstanding do-nothing faggots who whine about everything else.
>history shows!Filmmaking is barely 100 years old faggot lmao, eat my dust
>>217438908ai will never replace actorsits more of a visual effects tool
>>217438908Not really. He says it can be a useful tool but that the original writing it generates is shit. That's completely accurate.
>>217438954Why would he mention far-right talking points?
>>217438908>technology can never replace these easily replaceable thingslol. What an idiot. By what logic would they not be replaced?
>>217438908I agree with the point about valuations, but what does he mean by what history shows? There is no precedent for AI filmmaking.
>>217438908I want ai to happen so these celebrity faggots are forced into homelessness where they belong.
>>217438954>He didn't insert my unrelated political obsession into the discussion?>How dare he. Everything he said is completely invalidated now.
>>217439147His point was it will never replace them well because all AI does is compile from the average. It's not going to ever produce anything truly original or seminal, at least in its current state, because all it does is borrow from the median.
They were as close to Weinstein as it gets not to mention Clinton, etc. They're part of the problem and even now continue to shill despite the disaster that their side has wrought on the nation. Those Dunkin ads are to make them appear like everyman Tommy from Boston types which they never were.
>>217439159He's an imbecile. History is full of examples of technology making entire groups of jobs obsolete.
>>217439208>They were as close to Weinstein as it getsAm I supposed to care?
>>217439215entire industries.
I hate hollywood and the industry so much its unreal.
>>217439159e.g. despite the existence of photographs, people still buy and cherish paintings.>>217439215He's referring to creative endeavors, dipshit.
>>217439180Incorrect. AI can borrow from whatever you tell it to. It can produce any composite of things that exist if taught enough. You can make wholly original films with it. The thing you likely can't do is innovate nuanced things like lighting, camera work, etc because it can't produce things that don't exist yet. It's not like Hollywood has been particularly innovative in the last couple decades, so it's just a continuation of status quo.What "original" thing do you presume it can't do? Because it can definitely make humans that don't exist, images that don't exist, dialogue that doesn't exist, etc.
>>217439264People can use Ai for creative endeavors dipshit. Sure, there will always be a demand for bespoke art, but it will be a fringe industry
>>217439356Then why can't you point to a single thing that AI has produced that was anything other than trash?
>>217439315>You can make wholly original films with it.lol sure thing, it will just borrow some inspiration from a range of other sources that it deems close enough to your request.
>>217439315>What "original" thing do you presume it can't do?A story inspired by personal experience.
>>217439264In ten years' time ppl will be making their feature-length kinos at home through AI prompts and Hollywood will barely exist anymore. Even now AI outdoes 99% of artists in creating fantasy settings. Why watch LOTR when you can watch pic related?
does Ben spend all his money on Just For Men?youre 50 years old asshole. stop running away from it.
>>217438908Time to start an OF and a Patreon Unc
>>217438946You don't know what that word means retard
>>217439371There's piles and piles of great Ai produced art. Ai art has literally won competitions against "real" art. Thing is you're trapped in circular logic so it's irrelevant to start listing examples>>217439374I don't think you understand how this works. At it's pinnacle you would be able to feed it a whole script with scene/camera/lighting directions using actors you created. Even if you're taking shortcuts, then an action story about an escaped convict making amends and taking down his old crew with a pet crocodile in the cinematographic style of Kubrik will still be as original as anything produced nowadays
>>217439169you think Ben Al-Fleick would mention his leg up in the industry?
>>217439401You know you can literally write your own story and stick it in Ai right?
>>217439315>>217439356>>217439423>>217439529SAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRR
>>217439569>he lost his job to an AI prompt>"indians did this!"
>>217439590Nah, my job is untouchable to AI.
>>217438908why cant the just be honest, actorrs especially have to know how greedy hollywood ishe knows, if there wont be any backlash, they will replace anyone
>>217439569>>217439604Found the tranny.Go back to discord faggot. You disgust everyone you meet. You can see how fake their smiles are
>>217439551Then it's not making a "wholly original film" on its own, is it? That was the crux of the argument.
>>217439604What is it?
>>217439712Mathematician.
>>217439180>because all it does is borrow from the median.the dirty little secret is thats what 99% of hollywood already does. There is very little creativity. I for one cant wait for new Star Trek episodes starring Elvis and Marilyn.
>>217439721lol
>that runs counter to what history shows????? What historical precedent do we have for AI and why do we keep microphones in the faces of retards?
>>217439712I shovel mulch.
>>217439481He has pillowface. Face the facts! Ha!
>>217439691It is.
>>217439760I'm a 3rd party here, but isn't it simply the fact that when you watch an AI film you can simply tell right off the bat it isn't real? On yhat basis alone it isn't oroginal, it is by definition soulless, and you'll see the more advanced it gets, the more soulless it will become: if real humans aren't in it, we, the audience, have nothing to connect to..
>>217439134Is it political to coldly observe a factually evident pattern? Why are you so feverish to frame every argument you dislike as Far Right or Trump supporting, regardless of context? You are quite an odd fellow.
>>217439891An algorithmic regurgitation of aggregated search results, or otherwise database content of pre-made material, is not in anyway to be considered original by any person of a reasonable perspective.
>>217439896>on that basis alone it isn't originalIncorrect. Being able to tell if something is made by a certain tool has zero to do with it's level of originality. What kind of retard logic are you running on?
>>217439939see >>217439937
>>217439939An organic or 'real' film is original because everything in the process is real. In your ai 'film' there aren't any real actors, set pieces, lighting rigs, any real collaborations, hell there isn't even a camera lol. All AI film will ever be is a cheap gimmick, likely for midwits and lowbreds.
>>217439937Another fallacy. You trannies are really batting a thousand lol.It is original if it doesn't already exist. Regardless we aren't necessarily talking about mass produced content produced by someone at home using commercial, out-of-the-box system. There's curated Ai models that you can build in-house to produce specific content
>>217439977More circular logic from retards lol.If it exists it is real. When you're talking about a film it is real if it's moving pictures because that's all a film is. Is a silent animated film not real because it has no actors or voice actors?
>>217438980>He's saying there's room for it and artists tooYup. AI still needs stuff to train from. Actors have a few more years of training their replacement yet.
>>217438908It can't replace proper filming since it can't maintain continuity and shit. Writing is, probably plausible, but since it's more of an advanced search engine I doubt it will do anything truly creative. Just largely derivative. Admittedly a lot of modern writing probably is anyways, but those are essentially the things that keep bombing hard.
>>217440159>this advancing tech can't do this thingIt couldn't draw fingers like a year ago. Stop being an idiot
>>217439315It's hilarious how many tech bros genuinely believe this. AI is incapable of originality by it's very nature. Ot literally cannot produce anything without deriving it from another premade source. This is why AI produced media is doomed to be a media of the midwits, because all AI media will eventually become homogenized as it all copies what is currently successful. If Eyes Wide Shut did not exist AI would not be able to create that story no matter how many keywords were inserted because it would have nothing to generate from. AI is not capable of writing a book like It. AI cannot paint Guernica. Saying AI can actually create things is like saying you can make a painting without a paint and canvas.
>>217439423>tech companies will just let people have AI without charging them through the nose and moderating what they can and can't generate on the platform holy copium batman
>>217440075You just made me realize something: by definition a 100% ai film will always be considered an animated film.
>>217440285This, if I'm paying $15 a month for basic adobe pdf editing software, imagine what it will charge per month for a premium ai filmmaking package? It's only 'free' right now because it's in beta and they need free testers: lab rats essentially.
>>217439712He's a moderator on 4chan's Television & Film board.
>>217440270I always hated that painting. Just ugly and supposed to represent vague shit. Not much of a job for AI to accomplish, just generate enough to be able to point out some vague meaning in one.
Here is my qualifier:Can AI make a movie I will enjoy watching? If so, absolutely I'll support it in that endeavor. So far, it cannot, not that Hollywood can either recently.
>>217440270More.Circular.Logic.You could just input an original script into Ai to produce it. You can make original actors. You can make original scenes. By your definition nothing EVER is original because all words are just combinations of the same letters and people are just combinations of their ancestors dna.
>>217438908did anyone watch that last stinker he made? AI would have done a better fucking job.
>>217439371It's still a very new and developing technology. Just a few years ago the very idea of AI movies wasn't something anyone was even thinking was really possible. Now Hollywood is freaking out.
>a 4chan post about an X post interpreting a clip taken from a podcastToo many layers, my dude.
>Movies are going to shit as writers are now using AI to write their slop>Retards ITT think AI is going to make it betterCan Hiromoot please rangeban India already?
